Good morning. Liberty continues to be attacked, right here in the Fifty States, where this week and last we see a good many examples. Here are a few that caught my eye. The price we must pay to restore our liberty grows greater and greater with each passing day.

Back in January, the Mises Circle in Houston had excellent presentations on Secession by Jeff Deist and Ron Paul, pointing out that secession begins at home and CAN be successful in the cause of Liberty. Apparently someone noticed, as on Valentine’s Day in Bryan, Texas, a joint Federal-State-County-City assault force of 20 officers raided a scheduled meeting of the “Republic of Texas,” a long-existing secession group, arresting, fingerprinting, and harassing the sixty people present (except apparently for the Judas that opened the doors for the raiders) to carry out a warrant involving a “possible misdemeanor” being committed. Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Freedom of thought? I don’t know if this was a direct response to the Houston Mises meeting or not, but I do have my suspicions.

Huh? The latest front in the war against government tyranny is VENDING MACHINES? That’s right: another “unknown” provision of ObummerCare gives the FDA authority over VENDING MACHINES. Companies which own more than 20 machines are now being required to post the nutrition value of the snacks being sold in the machine. It will save $7.5 million a year in “health costs” (so the government claims) but will cost $35 million each year to inspect and regulate: more government jobs, more tyrannical bureaucrats living off the public teat. And will of course result in fewer choices for consumers, as always. Since posting of calorie counts in fast food restaurants has NOT changed the way consumers choose which burger or shake to buy, the FDA will double down in a few years and publish yet MORE regulations. Picture schools with no-snack-vending-machine zones around them, like no-gun-zones, perhaps? How long will we continue to let our liberty be wiped out, one action at a time?

Mama’s Note: Progress will be made against this tyranny ONLY when individuals realize that no “government” has any legitimate authority to control their lives. Until then, they’ll just squabble over how much, and the definition of “too much,” instead of taking full responsibility for themselves and their choices.

A lot has been written and spoken about the Fuehrer’s attempt to appoint another “Black Like Me” Attorney General to replace the tyrannical, corrupt, and arrogant Eric Holder. Loretta Lynch has so far seemed to be Teflon-coated as the Senate committee approved her and the nomination moved on. But now it appears a scandal from 2012, involving HSBC and an “incredibly low” fine of a “mere” $1.9 BILLION dollars may be a reason to reject another person who seems cast in the mold of Holder, Reno, and Ashcroft. Of course, I suppose you could also argue that this is why the Fuehrer wants her to be the AG: she has the same total disregard for law and justice that the current officeholder has.

In Columbus, Ohio, a break-in artist was doing his thing when the 71-year-old homeowner confronted him and shot him, dead. It is being referred to a grand jury for action, although police seem to be convinced it was a legitimate killing. Some people are raising questions as to why the grand jury investigation is needed, but it is generally a good idea to make sure that something else was not going on. This incident reminds us how important firearms are to level the field of battle: it is not a matter of physical strength that decides between the bad guy and his intended victim. It also reminds us that 9-1-1 is fine for notifying the first (sic) responders to come deal with a mess, but that there is no way 9-1-1 could replace a loaded firearm in the hands of a trained and prepared homeowner. As Oleg Volk is fond of pointing out, “When help is needed in seconds, assistance through 9-1-1 is just minutes away.”

Mama’s Note: Just a little quibble here… The person being attacked is the legitimate “first responder.” Anyone else getting involved is the second one. As for calling 911, it is very unlikely that actual help will be sent, regardless of the response time. Always remember that the police have absolutely zero obligation to assist, defend or protect an individual in any way. They are under no obligation to respond to a 911 call AT ALL, and increasingly we’ve seen that their response is often totally inappropriate, even when not deadly to the victims or the people who make the call. Dial 911 and die, indeed.

Which brings me to the bizarre commentary which appeared in Salon magazine regarding how “stupid” it is to allow women to carry guns on college campuses in order to let them defend themselves against would-be rapists. The Last Resistance has an excellent rebuttal of that Salon commentary, pointing out the many flaws in the arguments, so typical of hoplophobes and hoploclasts, including the idea that allowing guns on campus would mean that more would-be rapists would then ALSO be armed… duh. Like they are going to pay attention to laws? Or have the reasoning ability to understand that the consequences of rape WITH a deadly weapon MIGHT be greater than without? One commenter to the TLR article brought up an interesting point: “The minimum age to carry a concealed handgun is 21. Twenty One. How old are college students? They generally start around 17 (as I did) or 18, so they graduate when they are around 21. So, basically, only graduate students pursuing their Masters or Doctorate could carry a handgun on a campus that changed its rules to permit students to carry handguns at all.” John, the commenter, makes a VERY good point, which argues for allowing free citizens of age (that is, age 18) at least, to have CCW and own/hold handguns. But he should remember that many campuses have more and more non-traditional students who are 21 or older. AND that staff and faculty and campus visitors ALSO would be more likely to carry weapons, and thus be able to aid those attacked. Of course, when I was a traditional college student, I regularly carried a weapon (often openly) in those days, before this craze of gun-free zones existed. Funny, but back in the 1970s, there was not really a significant problem of rapes on college campuses. You don’t suppose there is any correlation?

Mama’s Note: What is magic about a specific age? Are those under 18 not at as much or more risk of attack? No, I suspect that the reason there were fewer rapes forty years ago is that the ladies were making wiser choices, and had been raised to take more responsibility for themselves overall. I can’t remember anyone being raped where I went to college in the 70s, or at the university later. Maybe they were not reported then, I suppose, since it was considered a truly shameful thing, even if you were a helpless victim. In any case, necessary as they are, guns are not the only answer to this problem.